When I talk to people about the contaminants, toxins, and carcinogens in personal care, baby care, cosmetics, and household cleaning products that are potentially harmful to our health, I sometimes see disbelieving looks on the faces in front of me. Many people tend to believe that companies wouldn’t be so insensitive to do this knowingly or that the FDA, our government, wouldn’t allow companies to put unsafe contaminants, toxins and/or carcinogens (cancer causing ingredients) into any of the products we use on our bodies or in our homes. People are also surprised to learn of the super large quantities of harmful and health damaging pollutants that companies in the U.S. are allowed to put into the air we breath, the water we drink and bathe in, and into the soil in which we grow our vegetables, fruit, grain that we eat, not to mention the same food that our animals feed on before they are turned into the protein we eat … steak, beef, poultry, pork, etc.

After reading the information on this page, come back and tell me with a straight face, that many, many big corporations care about their workers and their customers (other than their money). Most of them don't!

Tell me that they don’t put “Profits before People.”

Please read the following excerpts gathered from numerous sources.

(1) U.S. Dept of Labor Statistics:

MASS LAYOFFS IN JULY 2006

In July 2006, employers took 1,125 mass layoff actions, seasonally

adjusted, as measured by new filings for unemployment insurance benefits during the month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. Each action involved at least 50 persons from a single establishment, and the number of workers involved totaled 114,895, on a seasonally adjusted basis.

(This is in just one month!!!)

Unemployment:

The number of unemployed persons (7.1 million) and the unemployment rate (4.7 percent) were essentially unchanged in August. A year earlier, the number of unemployed persons was 7.4 million, and the jobless rate was 4.9 percent.

About 1.6 million persons (not seasonally adjusted) were marginally attached to the labor force in August, the same as a year earlier. These individuals wanted and were available for work and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. Among the marginally attached, there were 448,000 discouraged workers in August, up slightly from a year earlier. Discouraged workers were not currently looking for work specifically because they believed no jobs were available for them. The other 1.1 million marginally attached had not searched for work for reasons such as school attendance or family responsibilities.

(2)Examples of Profits before People:

*** Numerous lawsuits portrayed in movies, based on true stories, like “Civil Action” with John Travolta and “Erin Brokovich” with Julia Roberts, highlight just a few of the many examples where companies put profits before people where companies were accused of dumping or disposing of toxic chemicals improperly causing nearby populations, husbands, wives, and children, to contract serious and life threatening illnesses.

Here are a just a few of the recent related news stories:

- - - - - - - - - - - -

*** Seven companies have agreed to pay a total of $12.5 million to New York City to settle a lawsuit involving the dumping of hazardous industrial and chemical wastes at five city landfills. …

Judge Conboy identified the seven companies as the American National Can Corporation, the BASF Corporation, the Borg-Warner Corporation, the Dana Corporation, the Ford Motor Company, the Koppers Company and the Public Service Electric and Gas Company. The companies denied knowing of any illegal dumping at the landfills. …

Eight other companies that were named in the city's 1985 lawsuit have not yet agreed to a settlement.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

*** Excerpt: From his front porch on Cooley Street, the professional librarian can point to three houses where children had been confined to wheelchairs, another where a child had spina bifida, and yet another where a child was missing a kidney. He can also point to other homes where kids died of cancer. And there was a 32-year-old woman on his block who also died of cancer. All in a small town of only about 4,400 people at the time.

Ward, whose dogged determination to find out what was wrong with the land he loves resulted in the book "Canaries on the Rim," is hardly alone in his suspicions that Utah's environment is contaminated with toxins that are sickening and killing thousands of Utahns.

The late Irma Thomas once documented 49 cases of cancer in her St. George neighborhood, and now her daughter, Michelle, is stricken with a host of ills. Former state lawmaker Bev White points to 14 cases of multiple sclerosis within a two-block area of the Tooele home where she has lived the past 50 years.

Former Monticello High School principal Dale Maughan recalls the leukemia deaths of seven young people who lived within a five-block radius of his home in southeastern Utah.

Utah ranks fourth nationally in the release of chemicals that affect child development and learning. Tooele County ranked first in the nation among counties.

The No. 1 air polluter in all of North America — Magnesium Corp. of America (MagCorp) — is located on the western shore of the Great Salt Lake, upwind from 1.5 million people living along the Wasatch Front.

Millions of tons of hazardous and radioactive waste generated in other states are now being dumped in Utah — specifically Tooele County, which is home to the nation's only commercial low-level radioactive waste dump, as well as one hazardous waste dump and two hazardous waste incinerators. (One is now shut down.)

A commercial waste dump in Carbon County accepts wastes deemed hazardous in other states but not in Utah.

A uranium mill in San Juan County accepts radioactive wastes from around the nation that are "recycled" to recover small traces of uranium.

A military incinerator in Tooele County is being used to destroy massive stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

(3) “Scorecard: The Pollution Information Site” reports

Top 100 U.S. Companies releasing Toxic Pollutants into the Environment

-Ranked 100th at 5,505,804 lbs

-Ranked 1st at 481,578,816 lbs

Top 100 U.S. Companies releasing Cancer-causing Pollutants into the Environment

-Ranked 100th at 133,020 lbs

-Ranked 1st at 1,212,599 lbs

Top 100 U.S. Companies releasing chemicals causing birth defects into the Environment

-Ranked 100th at 148,154 lbs.

-Ranked 1st at 17,710,322 lbs.

Top U.S. Companies releasing most water pollutants into the Environment

-Ranked 100th at 422,250 lbs.

-Ranked 1st at 22,693,591 lbs.

If you want to know the names of these companies and in what state they are located, go to the website listed below.

Scorecard also has a page listing the various health effects of toxins. Here is how they have categorized them:

Recognized and Suspected:

- reproductive toxicants

- carcingens (cancer-causing)

- cardiovascular or blood toxicants

- developmental toxicants

- endocrine toxicants (includes hormonal)

- immuno toxicants

- kidney toxicants

- gastrointestinal and liver toxicants

- musculo-skeletal toxicants

- neurotoxicants

- respiratory toxicants

- skin toxicants

- sense organ toxicants

Look how many body functions toxins can destroy!

Isn’t amazing that there is enough research to catagorize various chemical toxins as to how each damages specific organs and functions in our bodies but not enough evidence for Congress to take action in banning these toxins and carcinogens from our products and from emission into our air, water, and soil. Don’t they use these products, breathe the same air we do, drink the same water, eat products from the same soil???

(4) From www.MotherJones.com website:

“When the Danish government learned about toxic chemicals leaking from certain baby toys, it moved to get polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic out of teething rings, rubber ducks, and other toys kids can chew on. The Netherlands, Germany, and Austria followed suit, and the Spanish government even asked the European Union to ban PVC from such children's items. But last week the European Commission decided not to enact a temporary ban. Why not?

The answer is a little bit of science and a whole lot of economic diplomacy by the U.S. Department of Commerce, prodded by U.S. toy manufacturers like Mattel (maker of Barbie) and PVC producers like Exxon. In memos obtained by Greenpeace last month, the big corporations express their gratitude to the U.S. government for helping them to quash the European ban—never mind the question of whether their products are poisonous to children.

In a letter to Commerce Secretary William Daley, Mattel thanks the department for its "aggressive" and "invaluable" help in thwarting the ban on PVC toys.

(another shining example of “putting profits above people” with the cooperation of our U.S. governernment.)

(5) excerpt from: http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/pipes/mcwane.html

(CBC News)

Originally Broadcast on January 8, 2003

THE MCWANE STORY

McWane Inc. of Birmingham, Alabama, is one of America’s largest privately owned corporations. Their corporate philosophy and hard nosed management practices have been blamed for an extraordinary history of work place injuries and fatalities in their foundries.

McWane companies manufacture cast iron pipes and various components for municipal, commercial and residential water and waste-disposal services. Their operating revenues are estimated to be worth between US$1.5 and $2 billion a year.

In the U.S., since 1995, they’ve been guilty of more than 400 health and safety violations in workplaces they own in 10 states. Since 1995, 4,600 workers have been injured in their foundries.

In 1999, four years after McWane bought a pipe foundry in Tyler, Texas, U.S. safety inspectors described conditions there in Dickensian terms in an official report: “Many workers have scars or disfigurations which are noticeable from several feet away. Burns and amputations are frequent… Throughout the plant in supervisors offices and on bulletin boards next to production charts is posted in big orange letters: REDUCE MAN HOURS PER TON.” …

(6) How Much Impact Do Toxic Chemicals Have on Society?

Read the Statistics.

More than 7 million accidental poisonings occur each year, with more than 75% involving children under age 6!

—The Columbia University College of Physicians & Surgeons

According to the U.S. Poison Control Centers, "A child is accidentally poisoned every 30 seconds at home..."

The Average American Uses about 25 Gallons of toxic, hazardous chemical products per year in their home... A major portion of these can be found in household cleaning products.

—"Prosperity Without Pollution,"

by Joel S. Hirschorn and Kirsten V. Oldenburg, 1991

Women who work at home have a 54% higher death rate from cancer than those who work away from home. The 15-year study concluded it was as a direct result of the much higher exposure rate to toxic chemicals in common household products!

—Toronto Indoor Air Conference 1990

The toxic chemicals in household cleaners are three times more likely to cause cancer than air pollution.

– Environmental Protection Agency report in 1985

Cancer rates have increased since 1901 from only 1 in 8,000 Americans, to 1 in 3 today! By the year 2010, this disease will afflict 1 of every 2 individuals!

—American Cancer Society

Of chemicals commonly found in homes, 150 have been linked to allergies, birth defects, cancer, and psychological abnormalities.

—Consumer Product Safety Commission

Cancer rates have continued to increase every year since 1970. Brain cancer in children is up 40% in 20 years. Toxic chemicals are largely to blame.

—NY Times, September 29, 1997

According to the National Research Council, no toxic information is available for more than 80% of the chemicals in everyday-use products. Only 1% of toxins are required to be listed on labels, because companies classify their formulas as "trade secrets."

—Lorie Dwornick, researcher, educator and activist, 2002

In the past 50 years more than 75,000 chemicals have been introduced into the environment. Today 300 synthetic chemicals are found in the bodies of humans. Even newborn babies have synthetic chemicals passed on from their mothers.

—REACH (Registration, Evaluation, and

Authorization of Chemicals, a European Union program)

Unregulated air pollution has caused one in six children in the Central Valley of California to suffer from asthma. More than 5000 children in the San Joaquin Valley Air District are hospitalized each year for asthma. The death rate from respiratory diseases in the Imperial Valley -- at times more than double that of the rest of the state. Up to 2.2 million Californians suffer from asthma.

Scientists are discovering a whole universe of health effects associated with the products of our industrial age with profound implications for public health and regulatory policy. The continuous appearance of toxic effects at lower and lower levels of exposure is especially troubling since low-level exposure to some chemicals is practically universal.

—The 2050 Project Newsletter, Fall 1994;

State of the World 1994, Worldwatch Institute

More than 75,000 chemicals are licensed for commercial use.

More than 2,000 new synthetic chemicals are registered every year.

The EPA tallied close to 10,000 chemical ingredients in cosmetics, food and consumer products. Very few of these chemicals were in our environment or our bodies just 75 years ago.

In 1998, U.S. industries manufactured 6.5 trillion pounds of 9,000 different chemicals.

In 2000, major American companies dumped 7.1 billion pounds of 650 different industrial chemicals into our air and water.

Except in the case of foods, drugs or pesticides, companies are under no legal or regulatory obligation to concern themselves with how their products might harm human health.

—Alexandra Rome, Co-director of

the Sustainable Futures Group

at Commonweal, a nonprofit health

and environmental research institute,

until 2000.

Within 26 seconds after exposure to chemicals such as cleaning products , traces of these chemicals can be found in every organ in the body.

More than 1.4 million Americans exposed to household chemicals were referred to poison control centers in 2001. Of these, 824,000 were children under 6 years.

A New York sanitation worker was killed in 1998 when a hazardous liquid in household trash sprayed his face and clothes.

At any given time, there is 3.36 million tons of household hazardous waste to contend with in our country.

—Chec's HealtheHouse,

the resource for Environmental

Health Risks Affecting Your Children

In 1990, more than 4,000 toddlers under age four were admitted to hospital emergency rooms as a result of household cleaner-related injuries. That same year, three-fourths of the 18,000 pesticide-related hospital emergency room admissions were children.

Over 80 percent of adults and 90 percent of children in the United States have residues of one or more harmful pesticides in their bodies.

Petrochemical cleaning products in the home are easily absorbed into the skin. Once absorbed, the toxins travel to the blood stream and are deposited in the fatty tissues where they may exist indefinitely.

—"In Harm's Way," a study by

"The Clean Water Fund" and

"Physicians for Social Responsibility"

May 11, 2000

Toxic Chemicals

Poisons can accumulate dangerously in the muscles, fat and bones from one toxic chemical exposure or from many smaller ones.

It is imperative that we limit exposure to toxic chemicals, because if our immune systems are pushed to the limit, we can't detoxify, and we become chemically sensitive at the least. At the worst, we are poisoned.

"This is a much bigger issue than nail polish or phthalates," says Barbara

Brenner, the executive director of the San-Francisco-based Breast Cancer

Action, one of the advocacy groups putting pressure on the cosmetics

industry. "It could be the beginning of a revolution in consumer safety.

People need to know that some cosmetics contain toxic chemicals and they

need to demand that safer ingredients be used."

Industry Minimizes Risks

For their part, many cosmetic industry representatives insist that phthalate

levels in makeup do not pose a hazard to human health. "Science clearly

supports the continued safe use of these ingredients," says Gerald McEwan,

vice president for science at the Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance

Association, a Washington-based trade group. He invokes studies done by

independent researchers and by the cosmetics companies themselves.

Health advocates, however, say a growing body of research indicates that the ingredient is not worth the risk.

A 2000 study at the University of Puerto Rico in San Juan linked phthalates

(which are also used to soften plastic) to early puberty in girls. Studies

conducted at Harvard University in Cambridge in 2002 and 2003 linked the

chemicals to decreased sperm counts in men. Researchers from several

different environmental groups say that phthalates, which disrupt hormone

function, may contribute to the rising incidence of uterine problems in

women, testicular cancer in men and infertility in both sexes.

In May 2002, the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based advocacy organization, tested 72 cosmetics and found measurable levels of phthalates in three-quarters of them. Though the levels were minimal, scientists warned that their combined effect could pose health problems. They pointed to a 2000 study by the Atlanta-based Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which found that phthalate levels in young women (who represent the bulk of cosmetics consumers) may be 20 times higher than average. The group's researchers called on the scientific community to study phthalates in more depth and to reassess exposure levels that are considered safe.

Intensifying Campaign

The decision to remove phthalates from nail polish comes in the wake of

intense lobbying from health and environmental groups.

In March, Breast Cancer Action and 60 other organizations sent a letter to

Estee Lauder Companies Inc., the Procter and Gamble Company, Avon Products Inc., Revlon Consumer Products Corporation, Unilever, and the L'Oreal Group demanding that these companies comply with European regulations banning "carcinogens, mutagens and reproductive toxins." The chemicals they're targeting include di-n-butyl phthalate (DBP, commonly found in nail polish) and di(2-ehtylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP, found in perfumes).

The Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association calls the European

regulation "unnecessary" and dismisses research on phthalates for two

reasons: Phthalate levels in cosmetics are well within U.S. safety standards

and because most studies on the chemicals' ill effects have been conducted

on animals and not humans.

Some Human Effects Reported

While it's true that most phthalate studies have been done on mice and rats,

adverse effects in humans have been reported.

When Olivia James gave birth to her son Darren seven years ago, she learned

he had bright eyes and a dimple on his right cheek. She also learned he had

hypospadias, a birth defect in which the urethra fails to extend the whole

length of the penis.

Repeated surgeries have corrected Darren's problem. But his mother, now 40

and living in Princeton, N.J., still can't shake the horror she felt when

learned about phthalates and realized her son's condition could be linked to

the chemicals in the makeup and hair products she used during her 15 years

as a professional model.

Every day of her career, James slathered on foundation, eye shadow, lipstick

and mascara containing phthalates. In addition to wearing heavy makeup,

James also had her hair straightened once a month. Like many hair products

aimed at African Americans, the straightener she used contained a high

concentration of phthalates.

"American manufacturers argue that no single product has been proven to have a detrimental effect," says James, 40, of Princeton, N. J. "But when you're using 10 or 20 of these products each day, the cumulative exposure does add up."

Federal authorities have set the safety level for phthalate exposure at

2,800 milligrams of phthalates per kilogram of body weight per day--a

threshold the critics say is too high.

"This standard is based on old studies," says Stacy Malkan, a spokesperson

for Health Care Without Harm, an environmental advocacy group based in

Washington, D.C. "Information is not only incomplete, but conflicting. The

National Toxicology Program lists some phthalates as carcinogens, but other

government agencies do not."

(8) Profits before People:

Personal Care, Baby Care & Cosmetic Products

Disclosure

Procter & Gamble is among those companies that has supported "pollution secrecy" legislation, which would provide blanket immunity for environmental crimes, no matter how serious, to companies which self-report violations of environmental laws. Any documents related to the self-reporting become officially secret, cannot be divulged to the public, and cannot be used as evidence in any legal proceedings. Environmental and citizens' groups are concerned about the implications of allowing corporations to hide civil and criminal pollution-related misconduct from judges, juries, and the public. Companies argue that the laws will encourage them to perform more accurate and thorough environmental audits by removing the threat of liability based on information discovered during the audits.

Friends of the Earth issued a report detailing the risks of nanomaterials found in cosmetics, sunscreens, and personal care products. The study demonstrates how a variety of nanoparticles can be toxic to human tissue and skin cultures. Numerous prominent cosmetic companies, such as Proctor & Gamble, L'Oreal, and Estee Lauder, continue to sell products containing nano-scale ingredients. Friends of the Earth is calling for a moratorium on further commercial release of such products, a withdrawal of those currently on the market until further studies have been completed, and regulations put into place for the general public, workers manufacturing such products, and environment.

Everyday products such as shampoo, deodorant and make-up contain chemicals linked to cancer, birth defects and other serious health consequences. Cosmetics manufacturers are allowed to use almost any chemical as an ingredient without government approval; however, some leading companies agree that cosmetics should be made with safe, non-toxic ingredients. Over 300 companies have signed the Compact for Safe Cosmetics, a pledge to make safe products and the campaign is calling for all cosmetics companies to do the same.

Procter & Gamble has been criticized for its Corporate Influence efforts:

Procter & Gamble has been represented by a powerful lobby led by the Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association, which has attempted to discourage government agencies from disseminating information on cleaning alternatives.

In Aug. 2001 the American Medical Association was criticized for a new million dollar campaign designed to educate doctors about its ethical guidelines against accepting gifts from drug companies -- however, the majority of the funding for the campaign was provided by Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals and eight other drug companies. According to the Washington Post, "the ethics guidelines allow doctors to attend company-sponsored conferences and to receive textbooks or drug samples that will directly benefit their patients, but advise them against accepting individual gifts of more than minimal value." However, a spokesperson for consumer organization Public Citizen said, "They're certainly not exactly going to encourage doctors to adhere to [the guidelines] when they're setting this kind of example."

Procter & Gamble hired dozens of academic scientists in its campaign strategy to obtain FDA approval for the controversial fat substitute Olestra. These scientists are paid to testify at FDA hearings on Olestra, typically without noting any relationship to Procter & Gamble.

-- Multinational Monitor

Source URL: none available

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

In 2005, Chairman and CEO A. Lafley made $24.62 million in total compensation including stock option grants from Procter & Gamble. From previous years, Lafley cashed out $4.23 million in stock option exercises. He has an additional $37.71 million in unexercised stock options from previous years.

Procter & Gamble was among the corporations criticized by Greenpeace for working to weaken European laws governing harmful chemicals in household products. The EU's 2003 draft legislation would have imposed strict safety standards, requiring companies such as P&G to disclose and reduce the use of harmful ingredients in its consumer products. Greenpeace states that as a result of industry intimidation and intense lobbying, safety regulations were significantly watered down, putting citizens at greater risk of exposure to toxic chemicals everyday.

-- Greenpeace International, 10/29/2003

Source URL: none available

CORPORATE INFLUENCE

Proctor and Gamble has done $1.325 million worth of business with the Pentagon between the years 1998 and 2003; this company annually makes the Pentagon's top 100 contractors list.

Procter & Gamble was part of the Coalition Again$t the Costly Labeling Law, a group of companies that worked against Oregon’s Measure 27, which would have required the labeling of GMO products sold in that state. The company donated over $81,700 to defeat the Measure.

-- Oregon Secretary of State, 10/31/2002

Source URL: none available

Quote from the GAO, Federal Government General Accounting Office

"Available estimates of cosmetic-related injuries do not accurately reflect the extent to which consumers are exposed to toxic cosmetic products and ingredients. Because symptoms of chronic toxic effects may not occur until months or years after exposure, injury estimates generally account for only acute toxic effects."

California Safe Cosmetics Bill Advances to Governor's Desk:

If Signed, New Law Will Expose Companies Using Potentially Toxic Ingredients

On Aug. 31, 2005, the California Assembly passed a bill that would require cosmetics manufacturers to disclose which of their products contain chemicals linked to cancer, reproductive harm or developmental toxicity — a first-ever accounting of companies using potentially damaging ingredients, and a first-line protection for consumers. The newly passed bill, the California Safe Cosmetics Act of 2005 (SB 484), was vigorously opposed by an industry accustomed to free rein when it comes to ingredient safety. It passed the Senate earlier in the year, and must be signed or vetoed by the governor by Oct. 9.

Environmental Working Group (EWG) researchers today offer California consumers a preview of cosmetic companies and products that face exposure through this bill. In an assessment of ingredients in 7,500 personal care products, EWG uncovered 155 products (Table 1) that contain known or suspected carcinogens or reproductive and developmental toxins. These products are manufactured by Avon, Grecian Formula, Wet 'N Wild and other companies, and span a diverse range of products from nail polish to body creams and lip balm.

SB 484 would require manufacturers to disclose to the Department of Health Services (DHS) ingredients in their products known by the state to cause cancer or birth defects, and would authorize DHS to investigate the health impacts of these chemicals. The bill would also require companies to divulge hidden, harmful ingredients in fragrances and flavors.

"The protections in SB 484 buttress a federal cosmetic safety system that leaves consumers at risk," said Jane Houlihan, vice president for research at EWG. "It may be legal for companies to use cancer-causing chemicals in products, but now, in California, consumers will have the unique right to know about potentially harmful ingredients. The governor should sign this bill without delay."

Although our investigations have uncovered known, toxic ingredients used by the mainstream cosmetics industry, we found that what is not known about ingredient safety is just as troublesome. Our research shows that only 11 percent of the 10,500 cosmetic ingredients catalogued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have been publicly assessed for safety by the FDA, the industry's internal safety panel (the Cosmetic Ingredient Review panel) or any other publicly accountable institution. FDA lacks the authority to require premarket safety tests of cosmetics, and the industry has free rein to use any chemical in their products, save nine chemicals banned or restricted by FDA in its 30-year history of cosmetic regulation.

"Our hope is that the threat of public exposure in California will encourage companies to switch to safer formulations, not only in California but nationwide," said Houlihan. EWG's investigation of 7,497 personal care products, including a searchable safety database for consumers, is at http://www.ewg.org/reports/skindeep/.

Information about the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, a nationwide coalition whose members support and/or sponsored the California safe cosmetics bill, is available at http://www.safecosmetics.org/.

FDA calls industry's bluff on product safety. Acting on a petition filed June 14, 2004 by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) [view document], on February 3, 2005 the Food and Drug Administration issued an unprecedented warning to the cosmetics industry [view document] stating that the Agency is serious about enforcing the law requiring companies to inform consumers that personal care products have not been safety tested.

Such an enforcement action could ultimately require companies to issue consumer warnings for the more than 99 percent of personal care products on the market that have not been publicly assessed for safety, as documented in a 2004 EWG assessment of ingredients in nearly 7,500 products (EWG 2004a).

The implications of this warning penetrate deep into an industry that has for years hidden behind the findings of their internally-funded safety panel, the Cosmetic Ingredient Review, or CIR. Despite industry's control of the panel, the FDA regards the CIR's yearly series of ingredient safety reviews as a core component of the public health safety net, and calls CIR assessments an "important element in ensuring the safety of the cosmetic supply in the United States" (Brackett 2005).

In its near 30-year history, however, the industry's panel has reviewed just 11 percent of the 10,500 cosmetic ingredients cataloged by FDA (FDA 2000). The 89 percent of ingredients that remain unassessed are used in more than 99 percent of all products on the market (EWG 2004a).

By law, companies are required to post a warning label on products that have not been assessed for safety stating, "Warning: The safety of this product has not been determined." With its February 3rd letter, FDA is putting industry on notice that it is serious about enforcing consumer laws. At the top of the list are 356 products identified by EWG (EWG 2004b) as containing ingredients that the industry's safety panel attempted to review, but instead found lacked basic testing data. The panel could not substantiate the safety of these ingredients. Ultimately under threat of enforcement are the more than 99 percent of all products that contain one or more ingredients that have never been assessed for either data adequacy or basic safety by the industry's panel, the FDA, or any other publicly accountable institution.

Buyer beware. Surveys show that many consumers believe that companies are required to test personal care products for safety before they're sold. It's not the case. According to FDA, "...a cosmetic manufacturer may use almost any raw material as a cosmetic ingredient and market the product without an approval from FDA" (FDA 1995). (article continues…)

(click on products tab, then click on each category to see the product list)

(9) MORE ON THE CORPORATE PRIORITY: PROFITS BEFORE PEOPLE

Working for the "Profits before People" Corporations ...

From Screwed: The Undeclared War Against the Middle Class –

and What We Can Do About It written by Thom Hartmann

Excerpts:

(pg. 2) What he didn’t realize, however, was that the asbestos used at the casting operation was an insidious poison. He didn’t realize that the asbestos industry had know for decades that the stuff could kill but would continue to profitably market it for another twenty years while actively using its financial muscle to keep the general public in the dark and prevent the government from interfering. … The doctors, however, discovered that his lungs were filled with mesothelioma, a rare form of lung cancer that is almost always caused by exposure to asbestos. Mesothelioma is terminal, and its victims die by slow and painful suffocation.”

(pg. 2-3) More than 45 millon Americans don’t have health insurance to cover expenses for a serious illness; 5 milion have lost their health insurance in the past four years alone. And it’s not just illness that worries most Americans today. Americans are working more and making less. Its getting harder and harder just to get by. … There’s a reason for the pan Americans are suffering. The American my dad grew up in put people before profits. The America he lives in now puts profits before people.”

(pg. 3) The inflation adjusted average annual pay of a CEO went up from $7,773,000 to $9,600,000 from 2002 to 2004. Meanwhile, from 2000 to 2004, the inflation adjusted median annual household income went down from $46, 058 to $44, 389. In other words, ordinary people’s income went down by $1,669 while CEO pay went up by $1,827,000.

(pg. 4) Over the past four years, from 2001 to 2005, America has lost 2,818,000 manufacturing jobs. If you don’t count jobs produced by the military-indstrial complex, the number of private sector jobs created since 2001 has decreased by 1,160,000.

Although 67 percent of large employers (with more than 500 employees) offer a traditional pension, that is down from 91% two decades ago, and it’s dropping fast as more companies freeze pensions and turn instead to 401(k)s. Only 6 percent of Americans working in the private sector can rely on a defined pension, and 76 percent of Baby Boomers say they don’t think they are very prepared to meet their retirement expenses.

Today, only 60 percent of employers provide health care to their employees. More than 45 million Americans were without health insurance as of 2004.

(pg. 5) How is it that companies could sell asbestos when they knew it would kill people? Why do people go hungry in America, the world’s wealthiest nation? Why is it that people like you and me who work long, full days cannot afford to get sick, cannot buy houses, and cannot send their kids to college? What’s happened to the middle class? These questions are about our economy, but the answer is about who we are as a country.

(pg. 10) Our democracy depends upon our ability to play referee to the game of business and to protect labor and the public good. It is both our right and our responsibility, Jefferson (Thomas Jefferson) insisted, to control “overgrown wealth” from becoming “dangerous to the state” --- which is, so long as we a democratic republic, We the People.”

(pg. 10) When We the People are given the opportunity to educate ourselves, earn a living wage, own our own homes, and feel confident that we have good child care, health care, and care in our old age --- in short, when America has a thriving middle class --- America also has a thriving democracy.

(pg. 13) … business will not always do what’s best for society. In fact, the fundamental goal of business --- to maximize assets and profits while externalizing costs and liabilities --- is often destructive to the public good.

(pg. 16) In 2005 the U.S. trade deficit hit an all-time high at a whopping $725.8 billion. Over the past five years, the U.S. economy has experienced the slowest job creation since the 1930’s with fewer private-sector hours worked in 2005 than in 2001. For the first time since the Great Depression, in 2005 American consumers spent more than they earned, and the government budget deficit was larger than all business savings conbined.

(pg. 16) Remember that businesses are run like kingdoms, with CEO kings, executive princes, and worker serfs, so they’re essentially anti-democratic. … a middle class won’t emerge when business has more influence in the halls of government than do We the People.

(pg. 16) Everyone could figure out that when working people have money, they spend most of it. When extremely wealthy people have money, they save most of it. It’s the spending of money by working people that creates consumer demand. Consumer demand in turn creates business opportunities, and that creates jobs.

(pg. 18) From 1980 to 1990, the income of the wealthiest 5 percent of Americans rose by 25% while the income of the bottom 40 percent stayed absolutely flat. This is why the most wealthy in America didn’t use their money to build factories --- after all, there wasn’t a significant increase in demand, so why manufacture things that people can’t afford?

(pg. 19) When people in the lower and middle economic layers of society have increased income, all of society eventually gets richer because working people’s spending most of their incomes is the engine that creates economic demand for goods and services.

(pg. 19) The unemployment rate has hovered at 4.9 percent, but the government figures don’t include “discouraged workers” who want jobs but have stopped looking. When you add that category, you get an unemployment rate of 8.3 percent. That’s creeping into dangerous territory. I you considered underemployment in the same category, we’d be back in the Great Depression right now.

… The American middle class is more in debt than ever before in the history of this nation.

(pg. 29) The Founders (of our country) also knew that the middle class doesn’t just materialize out of thin air. That’s why, in the preamble to the Constitution, they wrote that one purpose of government was to “promote the general welfare.”

(pg. 33) Today the bottom line rules and workers be damned.

(I highly recommend this book. Get it! Read it!)

Are You ready to Escape the Rat Race?

Becoming a Neways Independent Distributor can put you back in control of your life ... your income, your free-time and schedule choice, your personal freedom to do what you want to do, when you want to do it, without the everyday worries that you're faced with as a corporate slave!

Start part-time (for $35) without risk while still working your traditional job.

Build up your business and income so you can choose to escape the rate race if you want. Distributor income is like royalty income (authors, screenwriters, song writers). You do the work once, build a loyal educated (product risk knowledgeable) customer base, or build a team of distributors that share in each building a small customer base, and your work is done while you receive your monthly income continuously!

I can answer your questions via email and/or direct you to several websites that will provide you with Independent Distributor info and presentations.

(Testimonials reflect individual experiences. Results may not be typical. Individual results may vary. These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. These products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.)